TheHengeProphet

Sorry, in the past, I've run into enough attempts of cheating that I don't want to deal with the possibility you hopped out and jetpacked your way up to that speed. Even if you did that speed legitimately, before jumping, which I believe you probably did, I cannot allow room for a "but he did it" moment.

Check out twitch.tv/KSPTV as they should be hosting community videos there now, but official stuff is on a serious hold-off. Hope this helps!

In .20.2, I've been having some fairly obnoxious symmetry issues that I had not run into previously. Specifically, if you add parts symmetrically onto parts that have been added symmetrically, then take the root part off and try to re-add them, the symmetry mode becomes unchangeable and parts that were added after the first symmetry action are duplicated or triplicated, or more.

Sorry, the challenge isn't to see how fast you can get your pilot to go, it's how fast you can get your plane to go... That thing is cool! I like how you wrapped your plane in those intakes. I'm impressed with the four-engined design (probably easier to fly now that they evened out engine burnout). You got it! Simple is generally more effective! Have you seen the rest of the planes in this challenge? My entry has 168 intakes, and one of my planes, sitting around in a save somewhere has closer to 200. Thanks for the entries, people, I love to see what other people manage to come up with!

Sorry to be a stickler, but mods that add non-stock parts which influence flight in a manner that is not exclusively control assistance. Also, how'd you get that fast using only jets in FAR? The jet is made to cap at 1800 m/s in there! Congrats, you have matched my top speed ever, which I need to re-run, considering I lost the pictures in a hard-drive swap... Nice design, by the way! Sorry, but I can't go by all mods allowed, because it just isn't fair. Very nice! And welcome to the Mach-6 Club!

My least favourite engine (and as a result, essentially the only one I never use) is the Mainsail. As a result, I guess I can't vote. Anyways, it simply has TOO MUCH THRUST. *gasp* Yes, I know those words are heresy here on the forums, but when the engine has more power than the structural capability of the parts it moves... I've had plenty of rockets accordion because a random part (usually the rockomax RCS tank, but often something else vital) explodes from excessive impact force enacted by the Mainsail engine. Yes, yes, I could throttle down, sure, but that actually doesn't always work with this...

This was a bit of a necro, Redwork, considering the last post here was about a month ago.

Yep, that lander is quite the challenge. I'll have to try it again when I have more time. Also, there was a slight inefficiency in your booster stage, as the nozzles are angled outward slightly. I love this thing! It's like the ultimate test of "can you do this?"!

Actually, what I believe he is saying (and I have done this), is to EVA your kerbal, then (without moving them from the hatch) end flight. After that, go to the tracking station, control the craft that should still be on the pad at this point, (wrinse and repeat as neccessary) and you should be good to fly with an empty pod!

You could stage with a hotkey, activating the engine and decoupling without ejecting the fairings. I do this on my special NERVA plane that goes from 1700m to orbit on one tank of fuel and one LV-N, because if the fairings detatch, it will catapult the engine straight off the plane.

Yes, this would be a candidate. Anyways, SSTOs that serve any function other than to get in to space have been the biggest challenge for me.

Updated the speeds. numerobis, I don't know what maths you use, but it impresses me. I really need to get around to making a new plane to actually compete with you guys...

Stelith61, I'm impressed with those speeds, considering you are using a multi-engined craft, especially since you are just over 25 km in maximum altitude! m1xte... you continue to baffle me. That thing is horrendously fast.

Awesome entries folks! I just have to say... m1xte... what? That thing is horrifying! On a side note, I want to figure out how many intakes before it becomes too many intakes. Also... I hate that it technically isn't provable (particularly if the person crashes) whether or not someone got out and pushed while on a sub-orbital hop, but would like to express that it is against the rules. Humorous, however it may be.

There is one issue with steam, in that you can't keep old copies of the game. That's the only one I know of.

When the gear is open, it has weight, but that goes down to zero when it is closed. This is to simulate drag caused by open gear, but they had to do it this way because of how drag is simulated.

I remember that thing! Anyways, the first picture is mainly there to prove the plane can make a horizontal take-off, and while I would prefer all pictures are from the same flight, I'll make an exception here. If you look at the old leaderboard, you'll see my top speed was 2332 m/s, which was in a manned craft. I got 2330 in it the other day, again, but I guess I forgot to screenshot the flight record, so it looks I'll be flying it again.

Yes, it is not possible to reach 2402 m/s on jets alone, and this saddens me. I'll try to get around to updating the boards. What I am really curious about is how engines measure speed, as in which measurement do they use? longbyte1, I'm sorry to inform you that your take-off mechanism disqualifies it from having a horizontal liftoff AND jet-only use. I'm sure it can take off in skid-mode, but you need to be sure not to pull up before the runway ends (yes, you need to go off the end for that to work).

Awesome entries, everybody! Sorry for the delay, I've been having some serious internet issues at home. occar, you could probably improve your speed a bit by making sure that all of your intakes are facing directly forward, otherwise they just cause drag without allowing full benefit.

I use it only for the readouts, now, after its "instant thrust" policies have repeatedly rammed the afts of my ships through the fronts. Also, its tendancies to try to get that perfect burn often wastes ungodly amounts of fuel. Autostage, in the ascent autopilot does not turn off after you deactivate the ascent autopilot, leading to some "hilarious" situations. It often passes up perfectly viable transfer windows for ones that often aren't as good, and might wait several "years" before deciding to actually use a node it has made, because it "missed" the point the first time around. I find it novel, but it has a ways to go on the usability front. Manual flight is more reliable...

Alright, I'll change it to allow oxidiser other propellants, so long as none are actually used. This can be verified now since I require the resources tab to be open anyways. Also I'll have to add a rule for a screenshot of every staging event, because I know someone's going to want drop tanks. Kerbal Engineer Redux is fine. It's kinda like MJ light, though, as it only gives you the readouts. Does anybody mind if I just drop KER under MechJeb for simplicity, or would you rather I add a special note for KER? Use of the dev console at all is cheating, so far as this challenge is concerned. I probably should have clarified that from the get-go... Top speed for a turbofan engine is 1800 m/s in FAR, apparently. Thanks for pointing that out! A bit disappointing. Sorry localSol, I really enjoyed your slideshow, but without the flight log, I can't include it. Here is hoping you'll try again!

It might help to define what you would qualify as a "useful" sattelite, space station, and especially "self-sufficient" space station. If one wishes to litigate, someone could throw a habitation module with a probe core, RCS, parachutes, and an RTG, and under the criteria (going by game function) would qualify under all three categories, earning a whomping $260,000. I suggest making a third 25% value tier for all successive achievements of a particular milestone. Otherwise, you will swiftly find your various spaceprograms going bankrupt and unable to continue (lest that be part of the challenge). Keep in mind, an unappreciative government may still fund their space program if their program is late to a milestone, even if they don't wish to pay as much as the first guy to do it. You may wish for them to take screenshots specifically at milestones achieved, as further proof of such. Or, you may wish to specify when you wish for screenshots to be taken in general, as guidelines. You should clarify if this is to indicate real life time, or mission clock time. If you wish for mission clock time, you may wish to clarify where that clock is, as to avoid confusion.

How DO you manage to stack all those struts and intakes like that? I can't do it without enabling part clipping...

Main post has been updated to clarify what the challenge is about, and how things will be measured and/or presented. I'll start recording entries soon; keep them coming! I forgot to note (which has been added to the OP) that speed will be measured by Highest Speed Over Land, to prevent the misleading results sub-orbital hops can net you. If you note, I stated my speed was 2292m/s, and not 2406m/s, which would have easily netted me the True MachingBird award for breaking Mach 7, where it was actually my orbital velocity it recorded.

Not so sure it's part loss. I've lost complete control over craft before, simply by pausing the game. Next time it happens to me, I'll have to remember to bring up the debug console...